Skip to main content
    Start a conversationReign Assurance

    Bring us regulated work under real pressure.

    Reign Assurance is being built with the control functions that will have to rely on it: which checks, which exceptions, in whose format. Co-design means your risk, audit and control people shape the record while it is still being decided, rather than receiving it afterwards.

    Co-design development Send us a note Reign Assurance →
    Read this before anything else. Reign Assurance is not available, it is not sold, and it is not shipping. It is also not nothing: there is a model, a demonstration on synthetic data, and an evidence package you can verify yourself. We can show you all three on the first call. iTmethods does not issue an audit opinion or a certification, and nothing here is independent assurance of anyone's controls. Reign prepares the evidence; the people who own the risk decide. Co-design is not a purchase: there is no agreement, no statement of work and no commercial terms in place by reading this page.
    What to bring

    One named population, and the people who would have to rely on it.

    Work that has to be defended to somebody who was not there when it happened. That constraint is what makes a population useful to design against.

    01Why pressure is the requirement
    A population nobody has to account for will not test a record format, because nothing rejects it.

    The formats that survive are the ones a reviewer has already refused once. Bring work where somebody has been sent back to gather more, and the reason they were sent back.

    02Evidence assembled after it was asked for
    The controls described on paper are the controls, and the proof is reconstructed when somebody requests it.

    The gap between those two is the design problem.

    AskHow much of your last evidence submission existed before it was asked for?

    03Exceptions that go nowhere
    A check cannot decide, and what happens next is a conversation that leaves no trace next to the check that raised it.

    This is the case the whole design is about, and it is the one worth bringing.

    AskWhere does an exception in your process currently get written down?

    04Automated work nobody can account for
    Something ran without a person in the loop, and the record of what it did was never designed, only inherited from logging.

    Logs are not evidence and they were not built to be.

    AskIf an agent made a change last quarter, who could reconstruct why?

    What it involves

    What co-design actually means here.

    The word is used loosely in this industry. This is what it means when we use it, and what it would look like on your side.

    1

    One named population

    Each engagement covers one named population of work. Scope is written down at the start. If it grows, that is a new conversation and not an assumption.

    2

    A named engineer, embedded

    They sit with the team, see the real conditions rather than the described ones, and take the findings back into the design.

    3

    Your conditions change the design

    This is the part that makes it co-design rather than a pilot. What you push back on is what gets rebuilt.

    4

    It ends where you agreed it ends

    How long an engagement runs, and what closes it, is written down alongside the scope before anything starts. Nothing here is open-ended and nothing renews by default.

    What it costs you. Scope is agreed first, and the effort and the commercial relationship follow from it. All of it is written down before anything starts, and we do not publish it, because no two estates make the same ask. What taking part never confers is a place in a queue, a licence or a claim on the design.
    What we ask for. Access to one real population of work, and time with the people who own it. Not a transformation program and not a signature on a multi-year plan. If the ask feels large, we have described it badly.
    What you get back

    Record formats your own approvers helped write.

    Not a product, and not a pilot of one. The output of co-design is a design your people have already argued with.

    At the end

    What you would have

    On one named population

    Record formats shaped by your own control functions rather than presented to them once the decisions were already taken.

    A written view of what a reviewer could follow on that population, and where the walk stops.

    The findings that came out of the work, including the ones that changed the design, so your people can see which of their objections landed.

    The permanent limit

    Where it stops

    Not a stage on the way to something stronger

    Evidence prepared by Reign is material for a human review. It is not a verdict, it is not an audit opinion, it is not a certification, and it does not stand in place of anyone's professional judgment.

    That is the design rather than the current state of it. Without that said plainly, every negation on the page reads as not yet, and none of them means that.

    Coverage is bounded by the population you name. Work outside it is outside the record, and the record says so rather than implying completeness.

    We are working with a small number of organizations, not a waiting list. The number is small because the work is close, and close work does not scale by adding logos to a slide. Where this stands →

    The ask

    Work that has to be defended.

    If you have regulated work under real pressure and you are willing to let us look at it closely, that is the conversation worth having. There is no product to buy, and the scope is agreed before anything starts.

    Send us a note Another track →